Educability-and-Group-Differences-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen

30 Educability and Group Differences
educators or to society in general Some persons disparage the
question of whether genetic factors are implicated in subpopulation
differences in educability. Lewontin (1970b, p. 25), for example,
doubts that the question whether there is a genetic difference
between Negroes and whites in IQ is an important social question
and suggests that an interest in this question is simply a matter
of ‘vulgar curiosity’.3 Whether the question is called ‘vulgar
curiosity’ or ‘scientific curiosity’, the fact remains that many social
scientists and educators have been discussing the causes of differences
in scholastic performance between Negroes and whites for
many years. They are propounding theories as to the causes
of these differences, but usually they have not undertaken the
kinds of research that would be needed to support their socialenvironmental
theories or to disprove other causal hypotheses
which include genetic factors. Those who are dedicated to investigating
the causes of educational deficits among the disadvantaged,
rather than exploiting them for ideological and political purposes,
probably would agree with Dwight Ingle (1967, p. 498) that ‘All
possible causes of peoples’ being disadvantaged should be investigated,
and hopefully the application of knowledge to their
advancement will be guided by moral principles.’
If genetic differences in mental abilities relevant to scholastic
performance do, in fact, exist but are never openly recognized or
are dogmatically denied within a context of scientific authority,
one consequence, among many others, could be a destructive and
perpetual condemnation of the schools for failure to produce
equality of achievement among the various subpopulations they
serve.
Those who hold up the fact of inequalities in educational
performance as ‘proof’ of inequalities of educational opportunity,
often seem bent on depicting public education as an instrument of
the ‘establishment’ intended to suppress the disadvantaged. The
focus of attention is thus diverted from seeking better means for
insuring the proper goal of public education, viz., that all children
should benefit from their schooling, to building up the impression
that there exists a ‘class conflict’ between the ‘privileged’ and the
‘disadvantaged’ segments of our society. Those who insist that
equality of educational performance should be the chief criterion
of the existence of equality of educational opportunity are therefore
not illogical in blaming the schools for any subpopulation differ-